Answered You can buy a ready-made answer or pick a professional tutor to order an original one.
Research a legal case involving disparate treatment in the selection or hiring process. Then in a 3–4 page paper, succinctly and clearly analyze the case. Include the following in your analysis: Des
Research a legal case involving disparate treatment in the selection or hiring process. Then in a 3–4 page paper, succinctly and clearly analyze the case. Include the following in your analysis:
- Describe the important issues in the case.
- Provide a description of the case and describe the important issues.
- Distinguish the theory of disparate treatment from the theory of disparate (or adverse) impact.
- Distinguish the theory of disparate treatment from the theory of disparate or adverse impact, using specific examples from your selected legal case and providing additional context if needed to support your work. Be sure to identify the dispute and what makes this case about disparate treatment.
- Analyze the outcome of the case.
- Explain the court's decision.
- Note whether you agree with the court.
- Analyze disparate impact.
- Analyze the evidence of discriminatory effects.
- Analyze the evidence of discriminatory effects in your selected case, and provide specific examples of connections to the rule, policy, or process.
- Describe how the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures help employers avoid issues related to disparate or adverse impact.
- APA formatting: References and citations should be formatted according to current APA style and format. See Evidence and APALinks to an external site..
- Length of assignment: 3–4 typed, double-spaced pages.
- Font and font size: Times New Roman, 12 point.
- @
- 5227 orders completed
- ANSWER
-
Tutor has posted answer for $10.00. See answer's preview
********************************************************************************************************************** ****** **** from ***** linkCase *************** v **** ***** ********* nameInstitutionDate Describe the ********* ****** in *** caseA ******** **** *** ** **** Court ***** in **** *** ****** * **** ***** ** *** caseincluded **** *********** racial *********** *** ******** rehearses *** ******* ******* ** theCourt's plan *** whether explicit ********** measures ******** by **** ***** ********************** ******* ******** representatives and ********** ********* ***** ***** *** of ********* ******** ************* ** **** **** ***** ******* had * **** for higher-payingpositions: employees ****** ** ******** high ****** ** **** *** ******** ***** **** *** *********** *** *** ****** **** ***** ******* its ******** ****** ******** ******* ***** He ******* ******* *** ******** **** ************ ** place ****************** ********* *************** ******* *** *** ********** **** denied ***** ****** to ********* and employmentopportunities ****** **** **** Power *** ******** ************** ************ Court ******* in favor ** *** ********** ******* **** these ********** ******************* had * ********* ****** on ******* Americans ******* **** **** ********* to *************** *** **** **** *** ** ************* ********** *** ******************* impact" ****** **************** ***** holds **** ********* neutral ********** practices *** *********** ******** ************** if they ****************** **** ********* ****** *** *********** ** thisdecision ** an important ******** ********* It strongly emphasized ********* ********************** *** advancing fair job opportunities *** ******** regardless ** race ** ******************** *** ****** ** disparate treatment from the ****** ** ********* ********* lawful hypotheses **** ** address ********* kinds ** separation ** work ************ *** hypothesis ** ********** ********* *** the **** ** ********* *** ominous) influencePurposeful ********** ************ * bunch ** individuals *** ** their ******* *** ******** ******* safeguarded ********* ** ***** ** ********* ********* ** **** ********** *** ****************** or ****** * *** ******* or ********** candidates more *********** than ****** ** ******** *********** status Proving *** ********* ** discriminatory intent ** *** ******* ******* ******** v **** ***** ** unequal treatment *** defined ** *** **** ********** denyingpromotions to ******* ******** ********* **** ****** they *** *** *********** *** **************** ***** ** **** ***** ********* ******* from *** ******* ********* impact ****** ************ ********* **** ****************** ********** impact a ********* ***** ********* tothis **** *** ****************** ********* ** **** critical **** *** ************** effects ** ***** ********** ** be ******* ************ 2020) *** ******* ***** ** ****** * **** ***** ** *** ************ ****** ** *** **** school diploma *** ******** test ************ ****** *************** *** a ************** ****** ** ******* ******** ******* *** *** ************ **** **** ****** **** ***** requirements *** ** their educational ******************* *** outcome ** *** caseThe ******* *************** decision ** ****** * Duke ***** ** ******* a *********** legalprecedent ***** ****** * ******* *** ***** ****** *** ***** ************ ******************* impact"discrimination ***** ***** *** ** the ***** ****** *** of **** and ***** * majority in **************** ***** ******** they ******** impartial they ******* that **** ***** Company'shigh school ******* *** ******* **** requirements disproportionately *** ********** *************** ******** ********* *** job ******* *** Court's ****** *** ******* ** the ************* **** though *** *********** *** removed ***** racial ********* *** *** ****** ******************** historical ********** that ******* ********* had ** ******** ** acquire *************** *** ****** **** ************* *** ******** ********** that ********** practicesunfavorably affect ********* groups *** might ** ****** discriminatory regardless ** any ******************* purposeI ****** **** ******** ******** discrimination *** advancing ***** ************* in ************ ******* on *** *************** ruling *** ***** ********** the ************ of ********************* ***** ** ************** by recognizing disparate ****** and ************* ************** ******* ********* ***** be ************** ********* ****** ** ***** * critical legalnotion ** ********** ************** cases *** ** serves as * ******** ** *** ************ ********** ********** ********** ** *** part of *********** Employers are *********** *** **************** that ******** *** access ******** ********** ************* ********** ** **** sexreligion or other ********* *************** **** **** ** ***** ** how seemingly ******* ************ have ****** effects Analyze *** ******** ** ************** ********** ***** ** ************** impacts *** crucial to ****** * **** ***** ** ************* ********* convincing evidence that **** ***** Company's **** ****** ******* ********** **** requirements ****************** ******** African ******** ********* *** jobseekers The evidence *********** that ************ *** ** *********** *** ********* AfricanAmericans were denied ***** *********** ************* A **** ***** ********** of *************** ******* *** high ****** ******** than ***** ***** counterparts ****** & *********** Due to **** *************** policy ***** *********** ****** **** ******* ******** workersfrom those professions ** requiring * **** ****** ********** ***** *** ***** ****** inequities ************ Similar ** *** ******** **** *********** ******* ******** ********* ********************** impacted ******* ******** ********** may **** been disadvantaged ********* may **** had ********* educational *********** or ******** ** *** ********** ************* ********* being ******** *** ** ******** bias ** *** ************** ****** *** content5Despite ********* ******* ***** *********** *** a ************** effect ** *************** workers and job ******* *** ***** ****** up the ***** **** these ******* **** *********** **** to work *********** but ******* ****** ** obstacles **** systemically ******************** Americans maintaining ************* ************** tendencies *** legal ******* ofdisparate ****** which ***** employers *********** *** ********** ********* ********************** ****** protected groups **** if ***** *** ** ******** ************** intentwas *********** ** the *************** recognition ** ***** discriminatory ******* and ***** decision ******* ** *** ********** Companies **** ********** ****** their ******** and procedures to secureequal ******* *** *** ********* ********** ** ***** ******* ** ********* characteristics **** ******* ***** ** the precedent-setting ************ how *** Uniform ********** ** Employee Selection ********** help ************** ****** ******* ** ********* ** adverse impactEmployers *** ************* benefit **** the Uniform ********** ** Employee SelectionProcedures (UGESP) ** ********** ******** ********* to ******* or *********** ******* in *********** *** ********** procedures *** ***** ******* ********** ** ********** **** ************ selection ******** by suggesting **** practices ** ********* that ********* *** basedon pertinent ************** they promote *** ******** ** ******** job-related selectiontechniques that reliably ********** **** *********** The *************** ********* thesignificance ** applying ********* standards **** ** not ******** *** protected ***** ***************** *** ***** ** *** *********** ******** to **** potential *********** and ***** *** ************** ********* ****** the ********** **** can then make *** ******** ******* ** ****** ********** effects ** protected ****** The ***** encourages record-keeping ********** ** ************** can **** **** *** ********* *** ***** *** ********** ** uphold **** and *************** ********* *** *************** strongly emphasize ******** ******** *** ********* *********** potential ****** and discriminatory ********* ******* * ******* and ****************** *** lower *** ********** of ***** issues7ReferencesHeriot * * ****** ***** VII Disparate ****** ********* Makes ****** *********************** ******* NYUJL & ******* ** ************** H (2020) *** Sklaverei *** ****** * **** ***** ** *** *********** *** ***************** Antidiskriminierungsrechts *** ****** *************** Rezeption ********* ***** 68(1) G1-G4Wasby S L & ****** * ****** The Crusade for ******** ** *** ********** *** Griggs ***** Power *****